JUDGEMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. -
(1.)The petitioners are standing trial for alleged violation of Section 7 (i) read with Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1954") on the basis of complaint filed by the Food Inspector in which cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate by order dated 24.4.2009.
(2.)By filing this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners seek quashment of the aforesaid order and quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
(3.)Necessary Essential facts which are necessary to adjudicate the dispute are as under:-
3.1 That, on the basis of complaint filed against the petitioners, cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on 24.4.2009 stating inter-alia that complaint was filed for violation of Section 7 (i) read with Section 16(1A) of the Act of 1954 and on the basis of that, offence has been registered against the petitioners, but mandatory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 has been given to the petitioners on 12.5.2009, whereas that product has been manufactured in August, 2005 and was to be used before only August, 2006. It has also been pleaded that prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by inaction on the part of the respondents where the right to get second sample is indefeasible right and that has become redundant and thus, initiation of prosecution against the petitioners is fully barred resulting in abuse of process of the Court. It has also been pleaded that complaint has been filed on 24.4.2009, same is barred by the provisions contained in Section 468 of the CrPC, therefore, complaint is barred by limitation and order taking cognizance, issuance of process and consequent proceeding are without authority of law and without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.